Reviewed by: Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary by Andrew E. Arterbury Alexey Somov andrew e. arterbury, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2019). Pp. xiv + 229. Paper $32. Arterbury’s commentary is intended for a broad audience, including scholars, but especially ministers and laypeople. Therefore, although it investigates basic lexical, historical, and critical issues, its principal aim is a literary and theological analysis. The commentary is preceded by an introduction, in which A. discusses Luke’s literary sources; the date and authorship of the Gospel; its intended audience, genre, and methodology, as well as its relation to the Acts of the Apostles. A. basically follows mainstream Lucan scholarship. This helps him to find a balanced approach, which avoids extremes and is suitable for the intended audience. In discussing Luke’s sources, A. makes his audience aware of the Two-Source Hypothesis and Austin Farrer’s theory, but he deliberately does not choose either one as both theories have their advantages and both face challenges. Luke also used his own materials, which [End Page 326] were oral and/or written. A. states that this Gospel was most likely composed between 80 and 100 c.e. Although the identification of the author with a physician and traveling companion of Paul is open to challenge, A. prefers to call the author Luke for convenience’s sake. The evangelist is featured as a well-educated Greek-speaking person of the second Christian generation who is very well versed in the OT. In relation to Acts, A. states that the two texts are not a continuous narrative—Acts is a later sequel to the Gospel. Luke’s intended audience is not a particular church community but a wider network including both Jewish and gentile Christians within the cultural world of the ancient Mediterranean basin, no matter their social status or gender. The genre of the Gospel is a sort of ancient biography revealing Jesus’s character and using his words and deeds to highlight his public accomplishments. A.’s methodology is a literary and theological reading of the final form of the text. He uses the English text from the NRSV and sometimes includes the transliterated Greek terms from Nestle-Aland28/UBS4. A. mostly relies on other commentaries and monographs on Luke but also uses his own Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in Its Mediterranean Setting (New Testament Monographs 8; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005) and several articles (see pp. 223–29). The commentary is divided into four main sections: a proper beginning (1:1–4:13); Jesus’s Galilean ministry (4:14–9:50), Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem (9:51–19:44), and Jesus in Jerusalem (19:45–24:53). Each section has subdivisions, including a short introductory summary discussing the pericopes in both their immediate and wider contexts and a more detailed analysis of shorter passages. In his exposition, A. expertly demonstrates how skillfully, from a literary and theological point of view, Luke compiles the episodes. For instance, Lucan literary talent is apparent in how he compares John and Jesus: he uses the rhetorical technique of synkrisis to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus to John in chaps. 1–3. Further, A. shows how Luke makes the episodes literarily consistent. To give a brief example, Luke 17:20–18:8 is composed of three shorter passages (17:20–21; 17:22–37; 18:1–8) which shape Jesus’s answer to the Pharisees’ question in 17:20 about the coming of the kingdom of God. In addition, Luke in a masterly way deploys his text intertextually to echo other biblical passages (e.g., Luke 18:27 and Gen 18:14 [p.147]). Arterbury’s style is engaging and interactive, as well as exegetically and theologically enriching. This makes the commentary easily accessible to readers at different levels. Unfortunately, the English text of Luke is cited only occasionally in the commentary. Its systematic inclusion at the beginning of each subsection would facilitate an easier engagement for readers unfamiliar with Luke and offer a more convenient interaction between the scriptural text and the commentary. In addition, although A. quite often quotes or refers to sources both Greco...
Read full abstract